How Far We've Fallen: Attorney General Eric Holder Promises Russians US Government Won't 'Torture' Or 'Kill' Ed Snowden
from the should-have-gone-without-saying dept
If you had any question about how low this country's reputation has sunk or how we're viewed worldwide for our open-ended detainment and torture of uncharged terrorism suspects, you need look no further than Attorney General Eric Holder's "reassuring" statement to the Russian Minister of Justice about whistleblower Ed Snowden's potential extradition.
Holder's letter pointed out that torture is "unlawful" in the United States and that the government wouldn't seek the death penalty, even if "Mr. Snowden were charged with additional, death penalty-eligible crimes."
William K. Black, writing for New Economic Perspectives, points out just how horrifically bizarre this situation is.
The idea that the Attorney General of the United States of America would send such a letter to the representative of a foreign government, particularly Russia under the leadership of a former KGB official, was so preposterous that I thought the first news report I read about Attorney General Holder’s letter concerning Edward Snowden was satire. The joke, however, was on me. The Obama and Bush administrations have so disgraced the reputation of the United States’ criminal justice system that we are forced to promise KGB alums that we will not torture our own citizens if Russia extradites them for prosecution.When a nation, especially one considered to be the figurehead of the "free world," has to make promises to a former Cold War rival that it won't torture and kill a whistleblower, there can be little doubt that the country has reached its nadir. The US used to shelter dissidents from the vengeance of their former countries and once considered whistleblowers to be a part of a healthy government.
But now we've come to the point where the nation's lead prosecutor has to openly state that torture and killing are off the table, at least in regards to Ed Snowden. How reassuring. The government hasn't "tortured" and killed its other main antagonist, Bradley Manning, but it did hold him in solitary confinement for over three years and his treatment could easily be defined as "torture." (Although not in the only way that counts: the administration's definition.)
Holder's letter has hints of malevolence below the "cheery" no-torture-or-killing surface.
Holder phrased his explanation in a manner that suggests he was trying to be clever: “Torture is unlawful in the United States.” “Gitmo,” of course, is not “in the United States.” The locations of the many secret prisons the U.S. established in other nations were chosen so that we could torture suspects...This isn't very reassuring, but then again, a spokesman for the administration feeling compelled to make loosely worded "promises" about torture and killing isn't exactly reassuring either. As Black says, this should have been a forgone conclusion, and yet, AG Holder felt compelled to state this explicitly.
More subtly, note that Holder says that torture is “unlawful” – not “illegal.” An act that is merely “unlawful” cannot be prosecuted as a crime. It may provide the basis for a civil suit. An “illegal” act can be prosecuted.
I always took it for granted that no U.S. attorney general would knowingly allow a criminal suspect in U.S. custody to be the victim of torture, raped, branded, or a host of other forms of brutality.Our country isn't supposed to torture and kill American citizens (although we have no qualms about doing either to non-Americans, which is troubling in its own way). And yet, there's still enough gray area in this statement to make it technically possible. One way the government could get around the whole "we don't torture and kill American citizens [except when we do]" issue is to do what the UK does when one of its citizens is targeted by the US: strip the suspect of citizenship.
In early February, a leaked white paper from the Obama Justice Department caused a small stir, because it laid out an expansive set of circumstances under which the president could order a citizen killed abroad. In September 2011, the US killed Al Qaeda propagandist Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, both US citizens, and a few weeks later a US drone strike in Yemen also killed Awlaki's 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman...The US has already revoked Snowden's passport (although it is offering him a one-time use passport should he choose to return to the welcoming, non-killing, non-torturing arms of the United States). There's no reason it can't revoke his citizenship should it be deemed necessary. All he needs to do is pose an "imminent threat," another one of the War on Terror's endlessly flexible "guidelines."
Meanwhile, the UK is stripping people it alleges of having joined militant groups of their citizenship, some of whom have gone on to be killed in US strikes. Stripping people of their citizenship, strips people of whatever protection they theoretically had as citizens under UK law.
Of course, something as drastic as stripping Snowden of citizenship (and its attendant protections) is probably the most unlikely outcome. Holder's statement on the US government's intentions for Snowden is worded very specifically, most likely in hopes of preventing Snowden from taking advantage of the additional protection against extradition provided by the United Nations. Back when Snowden was still in Hong Kong, this point was raised by Tim Parker, a local immigration lawyer.
A handover could also be halted if Mr Snowden was believed to be in danger of receiving inhumane treatment in the US, Mr Parker added.Making very public statements about torture and killing sounds more like Holder trying to talk loudly enough that the UN will overhear him. If the government isn't going to venture into "cruel" and "inhumane" territory (at least not out loud), Snowden can't reasonably expect to be shielded from extradition by the UN guidelines.
"If Mr Snowden is at risk of being detained under the sort of conditions that Bradley Manning has reportedly been detained, which the UN special rapporteurs have said amounted to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment... then Hong Kong would not be allowed under its law, and could not extradite him to the US."
But whatever the administration's rationale for Holder's letter, the fact remains that the US government should never have slid to the disgraceful level where it feels its needs to make public promises about torture and killing. The fact that it has says a lot about the machinations of its anti-terror efforts -- one that turns whistleblowers into criminals and dissenting voices into terrorist sympathizers. If the administration wants to make a small effort towards rebuilding its reputation, it should consider dismissing the charges against Snowden and use the leaked information to open an actual discussion on national security and constitutional rights.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ed snowden, eric holder, nsa surveillance, promises, russia, torture
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Last sentence ssssays all
Well said, Tim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Last sentence ssssays all
Nnnnnnnnope. More unlimited power with no accountability though, please!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We even had good reasons for it, citing lots of studies by interrogation experts that torture most often leads to false and unreliable confessions, and that there's far better ways to get reliable and accurate information with prisoners that don't involve any torture.
But then terrorism came along, and suddenly we HAD to start torturing, because... TERRORISM!!! And Bush's #1 interrogation expert who started the torturing? He had previously conducted a grand total of ZERO interrogations, yet was still hailed as an expert on the subject by Bush.
Nevermind how all those other people pointed out that
1) We were throwing away over 100 years worth of reputation for being #1 at civil rights.
2) By pretty much openly admitting to torturing any terrorist or prisoner of war we captured we were putting our own soldiers at greater risk of being tortured themselves when they get captured. After all, why hold back when you know the United States is doing the same thing to your people they captured?
And then Obama of course had to keep up acting tough on terrorism rather than roll Bush's decisions back, because you know.... TERRORISM! We had to start increasing our use of unmanned drones, because, TERRORISM! Who cares if they occasionally miss and blow up say over 100 people at a wedding party instead of the actual terrorist!
And who cares that the drone's targets were never found guilty of anything in court? Foreigners don't have civil rights! Better hope that the government doesn't revoke your citizenship, otherwise a US drone might be coming to blow you up as a foreigner with no civil rights!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The moral high ground is well worth holding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I do see that rationale a lot, but I don't see it here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your history books say that ?? !!!!! OMFG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of /course/ the US doesn't 'torture' people...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's even worse
In fact, the number of weasel words in that "promise" pretty loudly indicates that he's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's even worse
'Oh of course we're not locking him up in solitary confinement to break him, we're doing it for his safety, as we feared he was a danger to himself...'
'Oh of course you can send doctors and psychiatrists to make sure he's being treated humanely, it will just require a 2-week waiting period each time, as he hasn't been feeling well lately, probably something to do with the weather...'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's even worse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course, if Manning is any indication, Snowden is absolutely right about that, but still, that's probably the cause of Holder's "reassurance."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm, why do I get the feeling that has less to do with any real justice, and more to do with the dead man's switch Snowden has, that would trigger should he be killed...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Note the 'Or'.
I can just imagine Holder sitting in an underground lair, gently stroking his cat, muttering "yes, why torture _or_ kill him... when we can do BOTH!" and laughing maniacally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Who is your informant?
We have our eye on you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
torture and murder being "unlawful" has never stopped the US from committing these crimes before, so why would it now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
some decades ago...
Well, these times seem to be over now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not only how far we've fallen
http://cs418927.vk.me/v418927997/16ba/UeQV-IhaHHA.jpg
To this...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/jul/17/vladimir-putin-edward-snowden-russia-us -video?INTCMP=SRCH
He dropped his balls somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not only how far we've fallen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop writing that, you know better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Notice that almost no one here believes Holders words to be accurate. Everyone suspects him of weaseling, leaving gaps in those promises big enough to drive a mountain through. This is part of the same group that wants you to believe you can trust them on oversight with the NSA.
Holder is not believable in this and neither are our politicians with dealing with the NSA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
we need to borrow the pope mobile a bit
enough of playing nice if the usa tries to blow up an airplane with children then everything the so called terrorists say about them would then be correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eric Holder's "no torture" letter
Eric Holder arranged Marc Rich pardon for Bill Clinton,
just days--maybe hours--before Clinton left office.
Q: Who is Marc Rich?
A: Marc Rich really was a traitor.
Marc Rich was SELLING ARMS!! to enemies of the US!!
Yet, Eric Holder arranges his pardon.
Edward Snowden is not a traitor.
It is not illegal to report something illegal,
which is what Edward Snowden did.
BO is the puppet of the Clinton Global Initiative.
Here is the game--> "Classify" anything illegal
THEN
the illegality is given a false protection
AND
whistleblowers can be smeared to look like traitors.
"Classify" LOTS of illegality
in the name of
"national security."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Eric Holder's "no torture" letter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Luckily
Source - Guantanamo Bay approved torture methods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Luckily
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Creepy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's the thing; So now it's easy;
- strip person of citizenship
- boom. no basic human rights.
How a country can claim to be on a moral high ground while repeatedly stating and showing that is does not find some truths to be universal and self-evident is beyond me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eric Holder... promised...?!
THAT Eric Holder?
He could have promised the Russians that the Sugar Plumb Fairy would forever rain down Skittles on Russia for all his word is worth.
Anyone who believes a word he says is an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nadir
I don't know, call me a cynic but I think thinks can still get worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nadir
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ye, who knew..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]